Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumabjorn
I believe the reference to Antitrust Laws refers to the ability to break up monopolies like Standard Oil or AT&T, but perhaps this was a consequence of abuses rather than size, IANAL.
|
Standard Oil created a vertical monopoly from Wellhead to Gas Tank (by itself perfecty legal), squeezed out smaller competitors, and *then* raised prices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar..._United_States
Quote:
...the Court concluded that the term "restraint of trade" had come to refer to a contract that resulted in "monopoly or its consequences." The Court identified three such consequences: higher prices, reduced output, and reduced quality.
The Court concluded that a contract offended the Sherman Act only if the contract restrained trade "unduly"—that is, if the contract resulted in one of the three consequences of monopoly that the Court identified. A broader meaning, the Court suggested, would ban normal and usual contracts, and would thus infringe liberty of contract.
|
The issue is the harm to consumers, not to competitors.
Unless it actually hurts consumers, competitors can go hang; evolve or die.
(Nope, theoretical future harm does not apply; only past and present harm.)